in transit in california, thousands of people in long-term solitary confinement, really tough drug laws. new york as they progress and we're starting to build conversations in california. it would be nice to see california be the trendsetter it was in the '60s and '70s in terms of progressive policies. i don't think we are there yet but initiatives are putting us a step in the right direction i think. >> a be we should explain exactly what proposition 47 will do, for the kids. so proposition 47 will be on the california voter -- it's a california voter initiative, and it reduces six low-level felonies to misdemeanors. it will transfer $250 million a year out of the adult prison system into schools, into

rehabilitation services, into victim services. so if this proposition passes the people, the voter, will ship to many resources and lower the amount of time that people can spend in prison for substance abuse, for petty theft, receiving stolen properties. there's six low-level offenses that will change. and it will also make people who have went to prison for those crimes eligible for an expungement. and i'm really excited about it because after being released from prison 20 years, after rehabilitating myself and hundreds and hundreds of others, jeanne, i'll be eligible to get an expungement or i'll be eligible to clean up my record. i will be eligible to not be punished anymore for medicating my grief with an illegal

substance. and incarcerated when i lost my son. and that's not just me. those are hundreds of thousands of more californians. so i'm really, you know, like gung ho. don ho for prop 47. >> prophet, i think you mentioned a little bit the political ship is going on and you saw that in a very close of way when you are lobbying on the to juvenile justice reforms that past. what's your reading of how much that has begun to change just in california? how much the confluence of compassionate, conservative, christian conservatives who have been interested in prison before for a long time, with tea

partiers who are suspicious of the government's involvement in these big giant programs, and, obviously, these libertarians is starting to make a difference here? >> right. i first of all wasn't a lobbyist. i would get in trouble for that. i was advocating. [laughter] just to be clear. so the two bills were speaking specifically about is s.b. nine, which is allowed california to sit juveniles with life without the possibly of parole, and s.b. 260 which is if the juvenile is convicted to i think 20 years or more, after 15 years with aborted for perl can revisit the case and whether or not they have successfully rehabilitated themselves. and what we saw was, first of all, the power of story is

actually being utilized a lot more effectively these days. and so myself and a few other individual who have had a successful transition from prison, you know, went to sacramento to advocate for these bills. and what we found was it's not as adversarial as many would think, and it's slowly coming together. and so we had support from different law enforcement groups, different victim rights groups. we had support, we had a letter from grover norquist and newt gingrich, and just different conservatives and others that you would otherwise think they're just completely against this. but i think people are saying not only has our prison system and socially irresponsible, it's been fiscally irresponsible as well. i was telling the group in the green room that just this year alone, our legislature passed a

budget of $9.8 billion for our prison system. which serves about 130 plus thousand people. we only past $9.6 billion for our cal state system which serves about five, 600,000 students. we are close on a path or have been on a path that we scare ourselves. in the '80s and '90s it was tough on crime. you are elected if he said tough on crime, right? we scare the public into believing all these myths about super criminals in the whole deal, but i think now conservatives and democrats and everyone are saying, you know what? it's no longer this idea tough on crime. we actually need to be smart on crime. if you're conservative, right on crime. and we are seeing a transition. >> do you share that sense of fundamental change going on,

jeanne? >> i do. even researchers who predicted these super predators, kids really that led to these long sentences are saying we were wrong. and assigns that's coming out about the maturity of the brain and all of those things an amateur costs are coming together. i think people both sides of the aisle are paying attention to they realize we're headed in the wrong direction, spending too much money on incarceration, not getting anything for our money really. and that our money could be better spent in helping people return back to society, keeping them from going to prison in the first place. actually what public safety is about, right? its people didn't understand the collateral consequences of putting people in prison. we took mothers away from their children to their children ended up in foster care. the whole idea that we were sending people to prison for really what were minor crimes,

led to the growth of games in our communities. and so as people were beginning to understand the critical -- collateral consequences of locking people up, i think that they're on board with scientific at what we need to do to stop incarcerating so many people. i think that's the good news. the devil is in the detail and that's will be get into all the debates about what should be the length of prison census for different crimes, and is going to take time to unravel that. >> people are talking about it. you are all in the room. the marshall project just started. it's a big sea change to me from five or 10 just when people were not talking about the details. i open the paper on most everything see something about solitary confinement which is what a study and they see something about juvenile life without parole and they see people from a whole and entire political spectrum and from a variety of religious perspectives talking about those things and debating the tough questions. that gives me hope. whether we'll get to the right edge i don't know. in the '70s when people talk about these things and we

produce a lot of bad policies but maybe with the wisdom of hindsight and a sense of what's gone wrong in conversation is better than none. >> i tell people this story. i was in richmond, california, and i saw got stand on a street corner and i recognized his clothing it was the release close in san quentin i saw san quentin i saw the backend as are many there looking left and he looks right as it is time to decide which way to go. no matter which way would come there was nothing there fo for them. in to me that really describes how we, we were releasing people from our present them without a plan. it's what we do with their county jails every day. we release people in the middle of the night from county jails and no services are open. so the doubtful truly is in the detail, looking at those local policies and the things we do that need to change so people can be more successful when they leave our jails and prisons. >> i think we are realizing we

get people there forever. that sense that we can even if they're antisocial we can keep and refer ever. we can't afford but it does work but it's not necessary if we do have to think about presence not just in isolation but in the context of our communities. >> can you talk a bit about your experience and what is taught you about what people need when they get out of prison and what's missing now from the system? >> so, i just want to say yes, we are talking about it. and i remember when no one was saying anything about it, and very few people even knew anything about it. so when people come home, they need to have an actual exit plan, a place where they can go to just detox the whole prison

experience, a place where they can be stable and get their id, get their social security guard, where they can begin to feel welcomed and they can begin to get back in touch with, you know, why am i here? what is my purpose? even though i've been through all of these things, what do i do with my life tomorrow, next year, next decade? how do i reconnect with my children? you know, some of the same things that we think about for our own lives, as far as the further development. what will i be doing in 10 years? where do i want to work? where do i want to play? you know, how do i get to rebuilding my life? how do i become a part of a policy system? how do i become a voter?

you know, how do i get my life back, my dream back, my goal back. so some of the things that we need to be thinking about is what do we do to support those coming back home to become, you know, constructive members of our community? to be useful and productive in our world. and a new way of life. that's our whole purpose. that's what we do with the women that come there, but it's just a small nonprofit in the smallest little city in the world. we do what we do and i think we do it really, really well, but there needs to be organizations across the county, across the state, across the nation that are bringing people back in and supporting them to become engaged in their communities.

>> jeanne, why is it so hard to you think to get money -- item interesting conversation recently with a prison warden who told me if somebody gave him $100,000 or a million dollars, and there was discretion money to spend anywhere on his present he could, he would spend outside the prison on reentry programs. >> why is it so hard to get? there such a limited amount of resources. i think that's the hope with realignment. before realignment, counties could push the problems to the states. and now with realignment it's kept locally, and is hopeful that the money that the state is giving counties will be utilized with more emphasis on reentry and providing the services because it's so critical. there's been studies that show that if people when they leave jail or prison know what they're going to spend the first night

out they can be more successful. if they have a place to stay for 30 days, the success w rate continues to go up. so we know what works, but it's just really getting people committed to committing resources behind those things. again, i live in the san francisco area so i know what they're doing there and they spent a lot of the resources on making sure the people of the services they need to be successful. into other counties need to hold their probation departments and their local communities responsible for doing the same thing. >> i don't think there's a real social sense that it's not fair to give people education resource, jumping resources if they've broken the law but it's something we have to confront and overcome and realize how expensive they become if we don't i society try to lift everyone up. i thought in prison and change programs for years to i got a college program at san quentin

for years san quentin for years at the kent family tons of answer the question why should you provide higher education service to those people who broke the law when you college students are paying to be in your classroom? might answer in california in particular is d.c. are expensive it is to deter these people in prison as posted in the college classroom. my tuition as a graduate student in comp and went up because we were spend so much went on incarcerating people. my students tuition is continue to cook because we're taking money away from them. i think it's both making investment and given to but also really stepping back to have the bigger perspective to understand that if we are not educating those people in prison, even if we think there might be less deserving and because to do my classroom, in the long term are hurting because my class and also because were taking resources away from them over the longer budgetary system. >> i heard a commercial a few days ago, and the commercial just made really, really good

sense. i think the buttons other and the stickers, they do the math. and it says you can spend a dime now, or a daughter later. it was just -- a dollar they depict it was really, really simple, like do the math. are going to keep spending more and more and more? over $60,000 on a person in prison, in jail and no services, no education, or $9000 on a person's education, a kid's education. so it's like a dime now or a daughter later. >> i think it's a great -- dollar later. it's a difficult conversation went to address which is when we're talking about reform in our prison system what we're also talking about is inevitable loss of jobs. i think no one is actually

facing that conversation as well. so when we continue to decrease our prison population, that means you're going to need less and less prisoner guards or administrative staff and what have you. we also need to figure out a way to utilize that population as well and get into a point to become educators and social workers back and actually weaning us off the prison system and put us back into a more education induced of system. and with the warden when you said if he could have a million dollars he would do reentry. you know, one of my personal views and i heard a gentleman say this before, van jones, and i've taken it on sense, which is we need to incentivize wardens to reduce the prison population are currently you have wardens like jeanne who are incredible, and tha the absolute no incentio

be incredible other than through the goodness of their heart, right? our prison system as it stands right now with privatization and other things actually encourages more people to be locked up. need to switch the assistant to where we are actually discouraging people being locked up, encouraging wardens and others reduce the prison population. i think then we strike some sort of the balance because yet the numbers on their surface show that yes it's easier and less costly to educate folks than it is to incarcerate. but we're also talking about losing a substantial amount of jobs that this system has unfortunately created. and so a part of this dialogue is how do we replace those jobs? >> i think having performance-based funding is really a way to get to that.

i have so little money and about money and budget but when you give money out, whether it's counties over to the prison system and tight to performance measures, so the more successful you are, the more money you get, the more could you can do. we had some of that. as an example, the state eighth more money to counties are reduced the number of people they were sending to present. and so counties really worked hard to reduce the number they were sending to stay present and as a result there again but i think san francisco received $1 million after one year. those are the kind of policies we want to see put into place. the better you do, her mom -- the more money you get to do more good spent one thing ms. burton hit on in terms of reentry, it's a very small and sure people realize how big it actually is, but just in a

social security guard, a driver's license. i personally think that should be done within a few weeks before you even step out of the prison system. because i can tell you when i was released, if i didn't have the family and the support around the, i would not be on the stage, i guarantee you. because i was released with $200 was told to forge a new life, after being in prison from the time of 16 to 22. no fundamental training within that time period so that's certainly a point of failure where we can clearly target and say, here's some tangible things we can do to change it. the legislative side of things in terms of former inmates getting housing and those things, that's a larger battle but hopefully in november i will be fighting, but it's service something that can be addressed before folks are even released.

>> this is all very optimistic, and a want to throw a little cold water. what do you think the possibility is of a backlash, these counties are also getting dumped with a lot of prisoners who were not their responsibility. the recent issue of social policy is not necessarily that the best decisions are made as responsibility devolved to the counties and the state's from federal government. >> you will see a different view of relying if you read the "orange county register" and if you read the "l.a. times." there's real fear in california and juicy reporting, crime is up, real-time is causing crime, more murders, more sex offenders and our communities. is the evidence of that. realignment is too new to study that we're bad understand what causes crime as a sociologist, as a society. when one person comes out and commits a crime, there's real potential i think for there to

be backlash and it's a real danger as a look at new policies. one thing that's important think about in criminal justice, prison reform is we have the expectation we can get a perfect. that's where a lot of reforms have failed in the past is if we just got the right sentence, if we understood the right risk assessment, no one would ever commit any murders, we would never any point presented in the bed. we are not perfect at anything. one thing to get better criminal justice policy we need to be willing to accept a little bit of air. not that there are people running when burning on -- murdering people on the streets left and right. we had to think about all the success stories also don't get told is often. anytime there's an attempt to be more humane, to get more people out of prison, or are these stories in the news like willie horton during the dukakis campaign, so he commits a really

gruesome crime and it's hard for us to put the guys because his more memorable than the thousands of people who came and did really well. i think you're right. we have to think about how to tell the stories of people succeeding better and get them in the news more. >> create a counter narrative to all the negativity that's constantly pushed is so vital to the success. we can change all the policies we won't. we can realize more resources to different places, but until the narrative is changed to what it is for someone who has committed a crime, because i can say through and through when i was 16 i committed a crime but it wasn't a criminal. and i think that that's a dialogue that we have to begin to have with the public. so when a person commits the crime, they are not for ever wearing a scarlet letter in society, and actually have an opportunity to succeed. and an opportunity to go back to

the kennedys and make it a lot more successful. i think we just have to bite the bullet. where she says, like everything isn't perfect. we are going to make some mistakes and have some missteps and some individuals are going to make crimes that were not going to be able to catch that. but the clear direction i think we should be on is how do we treat mental illness? how do we successful treat drug addictions? because that's not a crime. it's a serious illness and ailment. and i think those are two things that are huge for this. and mental illness, specifically in our children who have ridiculous amounts of trauma, who grew up in unthinkable violent and impoverished neighborhoods and their expected to somehow be the golden child.

it's just unrealistic. we need to certainly bite the bullet and focus on the. >> imperfection for individuals and institutions. >> and for me i think information is power. i've abdicated for a long time for a public report card by county. how many mental health beds do you have, how many drug treatment beds, inpatient, outpatient? each county can put those dollars at that we can compare that with how well people are doing. we want to put our money on what works and not go back to let's just lock people up because we know what that's like this. i think a public report card is really important. it's a concept that needs to take hold in this day. we have 58 counties and if the eight different ways. what's working? let's do that. what's not working? let's stop doing that. >> do you have any thoughts of you, the rest of you, one of the really hard pieces of this is

how you start to build that tolerance for risk, which is an inevitable -- you have to somehow do it. you have to trade some will of strategic patience in the society that it doesn't have. and you look at what hasn't changed in the system. parole boards operate very much the way that they always have. when there's political pressure on willie horton. the system kind of kicks back into its old instincts very quickly. do you have some sense of how to change that? >> i think i think you're part of the answer, which is that one, i'm pretty cynical about change, backlash but i think the movement for greater transparency is really huge and shipping to the incredible work on this strength. and when we have, part of the public stories like willie morton of the guy who commits a crime because he's released under realignment or someone who

was paroled and commits a murder is that we don't have the data to counter that really powerful individual narrative. we don't have the numbers to say yeah, but five under other people's were paroled and didn't do that and look where they are. or look at the numbers and realignment. look at what this candidate and how they overcame that crime. if we don't hesitate can't have inherited. i think that works to create better database is that show us exactly what prison systems are doing, what criminal justice is are doing. how they are succeeding or not is really important way to counter the narrative. >> i agree with the stories that are being told that are being captured, what people are actually doing it it's amazing to me some of the work that people are engaging in after spending some time and incarcerated. but we never hear about it. we never see it. one of the women came to me last week and told me about a child

she grabbed out of the street that was about to get hit by a car. you know, this is something that she did have saved a life, which any of us would have done it but that's what she did that day. that there are amazing things being done daily by people who have been incarcerated and want to come back to their communities and just be useful and thoughtful and want to give, make their lives count for something more than the number of the time they spent. there's a deep yearning within people to be that person. so i agree with you that there needs to be more stores put out there what people are doing, not just the willie horton's or the newsflash of what the person on paroled did, one person.

>> the articulation of policy at the federal level has changed dramatically in the last several years, and it's almost not been noticed as big a deal as it is, but you sort of wonder today, where was the impact of federal drug sentencing guidelines that change now going back four years on these incarceration rates? is there sort of a less of a role for the federal government then maybe people thought? is this one of those places where the power of the presidency is a lot less than people thought? >> so the national prison published overall went up at the federal prison population has continued to fall. so there's some impact there. i think people forget when they say 1.5 billion people in prison, less than 200,000 in the

federal prison system. any reform that federal implement it isn't targeting the 50 individual criminal justice system that exist in our states. it's partly just a bifurcated system but then i think there's a question of are those reforms trickling down or when eric holder said stop sensing people for crack cocaine, does that have an effect on the states? i think probably it does. it just takes time to change that legal culture. i think one place where we see federal changes is federal litigation. it's federal courts have said the california prisons are crowded. that's going to go down everywhere because that's national law. i think there is room and similarly when mandatory sensing was declared illegal in russia that might trickle down to state systems. but that's a very slow process. when you look at a lot of the criminal justice policy in the u.s., three strikes is coming, so there's a lot of stuff that is percolating from the local level in states like california and texas are having a big impact on the federal system.

not an easy answer. >> we started out talking about how california was doing at harvesting lessons of other places. .. >> hawaii's had a lot of success with their hope initiative and some of the other programs they put in place there.

i think there's bright spots around the country, and people are really beginning to look at what's working and trying to duplicate that, and i think that's good news. again, it's just a slow transition. >> no, i was going to say in boston as well there's a program that for every day they keep someone out of prison who would otherwise be in prison, there's a certain percentage that the government gives to the employer, and it's like this constant trade-off of jobs versus imprisonment, and it just constantly turned out to be cheaper. similar to what you said, i was in new york a couple weeks ago, and there was a national conversation of different organizations of how we affect the justice system. and i think there's all these bright spots, and there's a lot of them that are correlating with one another. it's now just bringing everyone together and, you know, working cohesively, i guess.

>> there's an argument that the kinds of success that you had with juvenile justice is getting at the low hanging fruit, and the much harder problems have to do with people who are in prison and are not sympathetic characters in any way who, you know, represent bigger numbers in some ways and harder, you know, more elusive solutionings. can you talk -- solutions. can you talk more about that since you're nodding? [laughter] >> yeah. in solitary confinement, there's been similar reforms trying to get the mentally ill, juveniles, pregnant women out of long-term isolation. sounds like a no-brainer, perhaps, but this has been a systemic policy of keeping these vulnerable populations there. and then you're left with this core of people that isn't insignificant that it's pretty hard to advocate for.

on the one hand, i would say juveniles are a really great place to start because they're so young, and there's so much hope. and the cases that make me the saddest are the 22-year-olds who are facing the rest of their lives in prison, and they did something when they were 15 that they didn't even understand fully what was wrong. we can demonstrate people having successful lives, and we should start with that low happening fruit. at the same time, i do think we have to start the much harder conversations ability what to do those -- about what to do with those tough cases. if we don't as a society believe in solitary confinement, people are starting to say it's torture no matter what, okay. then we have to talk about what to do with the person who murdered a prison guard in isolation, right, and think about that too and whether that person can ever get out, whether that person is mentally ill and needs treatment, whether that person so rare that we need to think -- can i think there's other cases where there's one case in california of a person

who murdered a prison guard, but maybe could be in less crickettive conditions of confinement and raise the whole system to be more humane, we have to talk about both the easy and the tough. >> right. and jeanne. >> your prison rings out all across the state of california and the nation for the work and the program that you did across, across the board with men that were, that are incarcerated there. so you might be able to talk about how you implemented and talked about and got these programs that raise the consciousness of everybody. >> well, first, i need to say i was very fortunate to be at san quentin, because it's located in the bay area. our ability to bring in volunteers is just so tremendous. my last year there we had 3,000

volunteers coming every year, professors from berkeley, from stanford, from sonoma state university. how can it be better than that? and the many organizations around there. so i was just fortunate to be there. and trying to duplicate that across california is really difficult because of where we build our prisons. but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. and the prisons have done a better job of opening up their doors, and there are more programs coming into prisons around the state. but i also wanted to comment to what you said. i think the point really is that we need to look at people within these systems as individuals. what are their risks? what are their needs? can we meet the needs of many of these people, and the truth is, we can. are there some hard core people that probably shouldn't ever get out of prison? the truth is, there is. but we haven't looked at it in that way. we've decided to take people and

throw them away, and we can't continue to do that. and i think the point you make is about looking at people. or what are their issues? are they mentally ill? itthere are so many veterans in our prison system. it is so sad to see a veteran facing a life sentence, and many of them have parole now under governor brown, and that's good news. they're doing well. so i think that is the bigger point. >> and i'd like to add to the conversation of low hanging fruit. i'd suggest that it's more than just low happening fruit and actually projecting 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years down the road us, because the -- down the road, because the the reality is the men and women who are currently in prison who we are unable to look at with the same empathetic eye as a child started off as a child, right? and there's very few psychopaths in the world, there's very few,

and that suggests that every child actually had an opportunity to not be a victimizer. and, in fact, most of the men who are in prison currently started off as victims. and so it's two conversations that have to be had at the same time, and it has to -- the juvenile conversation has to be giving, has to be pursued with extreme tenacity to project over the next 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 years so that we're not having the same conversation in 100 years, right? it's like we're -- we see what's happened now. most of the children have, are direct effects of our crack epidemic and war on drugs and vietnam or war and all these different things that have occurred in our history. and most of these men who we're now able to say, oh, my god, i'll never let you out started off as children. and it's like if only. if only we would have invested then.

now we have an opportunity to do that and carry on both conversations at the same time. >> i think we have to look at people individually and think about those long stories, but we also have to acknowledge that the worst possible conditions we put people in are very hard to control. that if we say, okay, this is the worst person in the prison system, so we're going to treat them, we're going to leave them in total isolation in a darkroom forever, it's very hard to do that to only one person once you've built a structure that does that. so i think that's an important piece of the story, the way we treat the worst people in the system needs to be something we as a society have thought about that that embodies our ideals, and we're comfortable to the idea that it might expand to other people, and those people might eventually get out of prison. and really think about it from the back and the forward. >> right. >> okay. we're going to pause and move to questions. >> we do. we want to leave some time to take questions from the audience. there are two of us going around with microphones. please raise your hand, we will come to you and pick you out.

we are recording this. be up on our web site first thing tomorrow morning so you can share with friends, family, students, colleagues who could not make it tonight. if you could say your first and last name, i'd be grateful, and c-span is here as well, and it'll be rebroadcast at a later date. danielle's got the first question. >> hi. my name is mary sutton, i'm a member of c.u.r.b., a statewide alliance of over 70 organizations fighting jail and prison expansion in california and right here in los angeles. so my question is, does the audience know that there's a billion dollars in jerry brown's new budget to delegate out to counties for new jail expansion? does the audience know that -- yes. do you know that $2 billion is being spent on a project for l.a. to expand the jail system,

and what do you think of l.a. county getting a billion dollars over the four years of realignment and giving 90% of it to the sheriff's department and almost nothing to community organizations? >> well, i'd actually like to address that. i'm probably one of the most staunch person, people against building additional prisons or expanding our prison and jail system in any form. however, we have to focus on what's happened with realignment. with realignment we've pushed more people into our jail systems that, unfortunately, are mentally ill, that need rehabilitative and educational programs, and they're there are. so i don't know how many people who have visited our current jail system, the l.a. county jail, but it is horrid conditions that exist there.

and so i'm okay with a situation where we are having better facilities to treat people in. i'm not okay with expanding belled numbers under any -- bed numbers under any circumstance. and i think that has to be clear. if we are, if we're building facilities to treat people, those that are no longer deemed usable for treatment need to be shut down and under no circumstance should we continue to increase the amount of beds. i want people treated to tackle the systemic problem here. >> next question over here on your left. >> my name is todd kerner. i'm wondering if you could comment on the relative impact of things like the private industrial prison complex and the huge number of plea bargains that take place on prison sentencing.

>> i'm going to take that plea bargain piece. as a person that's been through the system and working with people that are currently going through the system and coming out, it's not a plea bargain that people get, a threat. and that's the real bottom line on that. if you don't take what they offer you, they threaten you with three or four times the number of years that you're going to be behind bars. so it's a processing way of processing people through a system that we call the justice system. but there's no justice in that system for people that don't

have attorneys and for poor people, essentially. so what i say, it's not a bargain, it's a threat. and that's just the way it is. >> an important topic you pointed out the lack of attorneys and representation. county supervisor thomas is actually focusing in on, and when it comes with, when it deals with plea bargains is a lot of the people who are represented in our court system because we have a lack of resources to the state system do not even have public defenders, and they typically have panel attorneys. and panel attorneys are often given three or $400 for the life of a case. so what that says is if i can get this case out of the door in in the next hour, i'm going to get paid $300 an hour. if i do the due diligence to

defend the case, which could be months, i'm only getting $300 still. so there's, again, this incentive to push people through plea bargaining, and county supervisor right now is actually working on an initiative to get more funding for things like this. >> and private prisons are similarly, i think, an example of the perverse incentives that you're both talking about where you change the incentives of the system away from justice or towards efficiency or financial gain, and that creates real problems. the private prison system has pushed to have 34,000 beds mandated to be filled by undocumented people every day. so that was lobbied for by the private prison system and now required that those beds remain filled. perverse incentives to keep the system full. similarly with the plea bargaining. >> next question on your right. >> steve goldsmith, i'm connected with sentinel youth services, and we have a front-end program where we set up meetings between victims and

offenders, youth to tenders -- offenders. very effective, evidence-based. but i don't imagine we have too many people from the juvenile justice, probation or law enforcement here, so how do we educate them? because that's really the folks that need rehabilitation, those front line workers because they don't make referrals to programs like that. they have this idea that, in fact, probation department has a number of employees whose job it is to go out and violate people. that's all they do all night long, sending them back to prison. so so how do we change that system at the outside so as to reduce people going in to begin with? >> create dialogue. i think it's the step one, is to create dialogue between these two different groups and see that there's more commonalities than there are, you know, disinterest. >> yeah. and not every county is like that. i mean, many of the counties,

particularly in the bay area, they have reentered counsels where everybody's at the table; the community-based organizations, the district attorney, the sheriff, the probation d., and they're all working together. and some of the counties have mandated that a huge percentage of their funding goes to those programs, goes to programs. and they've done a lot of training with their probation officers to make those referrals, and their performance reports are based on those kinds of referrals. so you have to change the model of your probation department, and your whole system has to be at the table, in my opinion, along with the community-based organizations that are -- >> next question -- >> san francisco, 33% of their funding that they receive from the state must go to programs, so that's what they voted to do. so i think you have to do that at the local level to make that happen. >> next question on the left. >> good evening. my name is barry marlon. how do you get the for-profit motive out of the prison system?

we really haven't talked about that this evening. it is a business. it is a business upon which people are making money whether they are the lobbyists directing political contributions to congress members who are approving vast growth in the private construction and private operation of prisons. how can we conceivably direct the profit motive, because that's what this country works upon to the rehabilitation effort and to the restructuring effort to get these people back into society where they belong? how do we stick the pin in the balloon of the profit motive of the prison system? >> and i would just throw out the balloon has already been stuck in some ways, i think. and you already see private prison corporations pivoting

very quickly and very nimbly to move into probation services, into bail, into a whole series of postincarceration services, you know, with the exception of immigration detention private prisons are not really a growth business at this point. but why don't you -- >> and i think jeanne mentioned this earlier, just a restructuring of our, what we spend our resources on, right? so if we are encouraging social impact bonds, for instance, we're saying if you are successful with reducing this population, then and only then will you be paid. and i think that we're encouraging a profit model where, yes, you can still make money, but you're going to do so by reducing the prison population. >> we'll even pay bonuses. >> right. give you more money. [laughter] after you reduce the population. >> this is also an area where i think there's some black and

white that it really is inappropriate to allow anyone to profit off of punishment, right? and that's what we've allowed when we sentence people to probation and have them pay private companies high-interest loans, basically, to be on probation or when we put them in prisons. profiting off rehabilitation is a great idea. there aren't many things that are black and white to me, but that one is. >> and i think we also need to decide what we want the purpose of prison to be. in the penal code it's still punishment. the purpose of prison should be rehabilitation. and i think we have to be clear about what we expect people to achieve. >> next question to your right. >> hi. my name is thelma -- [inaudible] i actually went through the mif program at uc irvine, so real thankful you're here. >> wonderful. thank you. >> my topic is poverty. whenever i read books by civil

rights movements back in the day, you know, martin luther king, dr. new match, and i read criminal justice books also, and it seems like sometimes they have the same common theme of attacking poverty. like -- okay, i'll hurry up. the rich get richer, and the poor get prison, right in the state that has the most income, people make money, the higher the prison population like california. all morals are out the door when you're in survival mode. and martin luther king says if you empower somebody, their voice means something, they have a skill they can focus on. so i wonder if this ever thought of fixing crime ever becoming like a civil rights type of movement. it seems like people's rights are violated, and we're in america, and it seems like that becomes part of the problem. it's urgent. how could we -- can it ever go that route to where we're hurting our own citizens by not empowering them and educating them and treating them like a

human being when they come out of the criminal justice system? >> mass incarceration is the final frontier of civil rights? >> maybe i'll say something nice about privatization of punishment now which is i think it highlights that in a way being free from some of these things is a civil right. when you read about people many ferguson, missouri, essentially being in debtor's prison, we see we have violated a civil right in a way we have a much harder time seeing. so thanks to privatization at least for enlight ping people in that way, i guess. >> you know, we haven't touched on race in this whole conversation. [applause] you know, we haven't touched on race, we haven't touched on the 13th amendment where slavery's still okay when you're imprisoned, and that really needs to be in the depth, in the heart of this conversation. when you see so many black men,

so many black boys, the numbers are astounding, the numbers of them that are incarcerated. when you're in that place and you're getting $8.10 an hour for raising chickens or pucking pecans -- picking pecans or making a desk and, you know, you get out and you have these fines, or you get out with a hot $200 and, you know, make it from there. but we have not touched on how race is driving this. so 70, 80, 90, 100 years ago being black i was, you know, pushed out. but now today, having a criminal history, i'm pushed out. and so many of our young men, so many of our women of color, men of color are pushed out and incarcerated and worked as a

slave under the criminal justice system. so we, you know, we're deep and late in this conversation, but we must put race into this. and mass incarceration of black and brown folks in this conversation. [applause] >> we have time for one last question. we've run out of time, but i want to take the time to thank all of our panelists for sharing their evening with us. that was wonderful. and all of them are going to be at our reception where everyone is invited to go up to them individually and ask further questions. also want to take a moment to thank the california endowment for hosting us and co-producing this event with us. we couldn't have done this without them. and now our last question. >> hello. my name is joshua, i'm from south central los angeles, and i hear us talk about

rehabilitation. my brother just got out after ten years, right? and he basically went to jail because he was trying to feed his family, and he shot a man, and the judge told my brother he would have got can less time if he had killed the man. i didn't believe it, but i was there. what's next after they get out of prison? once you're a felon, there's no access to jobs, and especially as a black male, you know, i'm in the most depressed community, south central is hard for me too. you know, what's next for us? we have all money, but no one is getting jobs, and my brother has a child and has a child on the way, and he can't get any work. >> so having been a cofounder of anti-recidivism coalition, we're two pronged. 50% of our time is dealt with advocacy in sacramento on better policy, the other piece is looking for individuals who are

going to commit to being drug-free, crime-free, of service to their community in search of employment or education. and we've just created a housing model that is right across the street from a existing, from pierce college, and it gives folks an opportunity to live. they pay a certain amount of rent, but it goes back into when they leave out of college so that they can actually have more money once they're successful with their college degree. and i think for your brother, unfortunately, we do not have an immense amount of reentry programs today. and i think that's the point of this panel, is to talk about how to we get there. in the meantime or in the interim. arc is a source of hope and something your brother or others can utilize. and if we don't have the resources, we can try and connect. and i would encourage anyone who

is a ceo or president of a nonprofit organization, it is vitally important that you all communicate with others, nonprofit organizations. because what's happening is people like your brother will come home, and there's only this one small organization in south central that can't fulfill his needs, but there may be others. and there's no communication between the two to actually get the help. >> and if i could just comment. i know there's somebody here in the audience that provides jobs for people coming home, because they e-mailed me. is it you? >> yes. we're from -- [inaudible] >> uh-huh. >> hold on one second. >> while they're getting the mic to you, let me just say this: i know there's many organizations popping up around the state to help people get employment. i've actually gone out and spoke to employer groups to explain to

them why they should hire somebody coming out of our prison system. and we're also educating employers as to the benefits of hiring people. there's tax breaks, there's all kinds of things that the state is offering when you hire somebody that has been in the criminal justice system. go ahead. >> we are from a recycling company, we're an e-waste corporation. we're here in china town, and we hire this population. and we train them. brian has worked extensively with them. so we are trying to have a good story instead of, you know, you getting out and not automobile to find work. -- not able to find work. we need more e-waste, so the more e-waste we get, the more jobs we can provide. so we're working with large corporations, trying to get the message out. >> and i'd like to connect with the young man at the break time. i'm in south l.a. we do organizing with formerly incarcerated people, and we work

extensively with both male and female on the organizing side, and we're also working with the mayor's office. so let's talk during the break. >> let's everyone talk during the break. let's go out, we'll see you at the reception. [laughter] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up live today here on c-span2, secretary of state john kerry speaks about u.s./china

relations. from the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies, that's live at 9:30 a.m. eastern. and later in the day, a discussion on efforts to create an hiv vaccine. we'll hear from representatives from two groups working towards the cause as well as dr. anthony fauci who heads the national institute of allery and infectious diseases. that's hosted by the center for strategic and international studies, live coverage begins at 2 p.m. eastern over on c-span. >> throughout campaign 2014 c-span has brought you more than 130 candidate debates from across the country in races that will determine control of the next congress. and tonight watch c-span's live election night coverage to see who wins, who loses and which party will control the house and senate. our coverage begins at 8 p.m. eastern with results and analysis. you'll also see candidate victory and concession speeches in some of the most

closely-watched senate races across the country. throughout the night and into the morning, we want to hear from you with your calls, facebook comments and tweets. campaign 2014 election night coverage on c-span. >> attorney general eric holder and epa administrator gina mccarthy announced yesterday that car companies hyundai and kia would be fined $100 million for misstating gas mileage and greenhouse gas emissions in nearly 1.2 million vehicles. the settlement is the largest penalty under the clean air act. this news conference is half an hour. >> well, good morning. i'm joined today but administrator gina mccarthy of the environmental protection agency, and we are here to announce a historic settlement

under the clean air act, a settlement that i believe will send an unmistakeable message to automakers around the world that they must comply with u.s. law, they must be forthcoming with the epa about critical certification requirements and that the united states department of justice will never rest in our determination to protect american consumers. we are announcing today that the united states has filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that hyundai motor america, kia motors america and related entities violated the clean air act by selling roughly 1.2 million cars throughout the united states based on inaccurate representations of the vehicles' performance and emissions. for context, beginning in 2012 hyundai and kia, like all the other light-duty carmakers, had to meet certain greenhouse gas emission limits. these emissions correlate with the fuel efficiency of a vehicle because, in essence, the more

fuel efficient your car happens to be in miles per gallon, the less greenhouse gases that it emits. the clean air act requires car manufacturers to test representative vehicles in order to insure that they meet emission standards. these manufacturers then must apply to the epa for what is called a certificate of conformity. through this process car companies provide assurances to the epa that any car like the test vehicle will also meet the necessary emissions standards. in our complaint we maintain that hyundai and kia misrepresented to the epa a key vehicle characteristic known as the road load force of each of six car models when it applied for certificates for those vehicles. because they used inaccurately low numbers to demonstrate compliance we missions standards, cherry picking data and conducting tests in ways that did not reflect good

engineering judgment, hyundai and kia calculated higher fuel economy and lower greenhouse gas emission than these vehicles actually have. the companies then reported the lower greenhouse gas emission numbers to the epa in their applications. they claimed more ght emission credits than they were entitled to, and they touted these inaccurate fuel economy statistics to consumers. the misrepresentations of the road load force, we allege that hyundai and kia vehicles in question are uncertified, and each uncertified vehicle that was sold constitutes a separate violation of the clean air act. because this important law fundamentally depends on accurate testing and reporting by carmakers. any company that misrepresents the performance of their test vehicles risks harming human health and the environment either by causing more pollution than the law allows or, as happened in this case, by claiming greenhouse gas

emissions credits that they did not earn. to the tune of roughly $4.75 -- 4.75 million metric tons. without this enforcement action, hyundai and kia could have used or sold those emission credits later on. now, violations like this also compromise key safeguards that preserve fair and open competition in the marketplace by putting other carmakers at a competitive disadvantage. companies that comply with the law may spend more to achieve emission characteristics than those that misrepresent the performance of their vehicles. they may see their sales affected by the claims of other companies regarding, for example, better fuel economy. can more importantly, all consumers, all consumers have the right to know that the cars they buy actually have the characteristics that are represented to the epa. a basic compact that hyundai and kia flagrantly violated in this case. under the historic settlement

that we announced today, hyundai and kia will remedy their conduct by doing three things. first, they will pay a civil penalty of $100 million. the averagest civil -- largest civil penalty ever secured under the clean air act. this will send a strong message that cheating is not profitable and that any company that violates the law will be held to account. second, hyundai and kia will forfeit the greenhouse gas credits that the companies wrongly claimed based on their inaccurate reporting. our settlement will require them to relinquish 4.75 million metric tons worth of credits which could be valued at hundreds of millions of dollars. and finally, hyundai and kia will be required to implement rigorous new procedures including training and enhanced audit testing of their vehicles to prevent this kind of violation from ever happening again. now, this unprecedented resolution underscores the justice department's firm

commitment to safeguarding american consumers, assuring fairness in every marketplace and in protecting the environment and relentlessly pursuing companies that make misrepresentations and violate the law. we are pleased to be joined in this action by the california air resources board. this announcement illustrates this type of conduct, quite simply, will not be tolerated. and the justice department and our partners will never rest or waver in our determination to take action against anyone who engages in such activities. whenever and wherever they are uncovered. i'd like to thank everyone who made this resolution possible, particularly ben fishero, karen and jason of the environmental and natural resources, environmental and natural resource division's environmental enforcement section. at this time i'd like to introduce gina mccarthy who will provide additional details on today's announcement.

gina? >> first of all, let's lower the microphone a little bit. hello, everybody. first of all, let me thank attorney general holder for having us here today and for his pickup on today's -- his partnership on today's announcement as well as, of course, acting assistant ag hirsh for all of his work and all the team at doj. and i also want to thank cynthia giles who's here. she is the head of epa's enforcement office. i want to recognize phil brooks who's done tremendous work here. he runs our air enforcement division. i also want to congratulate janet mccabe and chris and the whole team at epa for working so hard to make good on our rules that epa so creatively and, i think, so effectively worked with this community to put in place. so thanks, everybody, for this. first of all, the light-duty vehicle rule was, and let me remind everybody, it was the

first time epa actually acted to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. we acted under the clean air act. and we were addressing vehicle emissions because it is essential to our commitment to fight climate change. and this case and this settlement actually delivers on the commitment of that rulemaking, because when we hold companies accountable through accurate testing and through honest reporting, we can insure that the real emissions reductions that we attempted to achieve and we expected to achieve are actually delivered for the american public. because when we hold them accountable, we actually make good on our promise to consumers that they know what they're buying, and they're going to get the emission reductions and the clean vehicles that they're intending to purchase. now, under president obama's leadership epa and d.o.t.'s

historic greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards are cutting carbon pollution that fuels our changing climate, and they're also saving families money at the pump. and we know that fuel efficiency sells, there is no question about it. we know it's the number one factor that consumers think about when they're going to buy a car. and the auto industry has come back from the brink because in designing, they're manufacturing and they're selling more fuel efficient and cleaner cars that consumers actually want to purchase. since 2009 the auto try haded more than 250,000 jobs. and today more cars are being made on american assembly lines than have been made since the past 12 years. now, we also know that when you misstate fuel economy, fuel efficiency on the stickers, these labels of a car, it means

that we're not delivering the health benefits or the climate protections that are promised by the law. what we are doing is making that carr more attractive to consumers than it would otherwise be. that tilts the market in fave of those who don't play by the rules to those -- and it disadvantages those that actually do play by the rules. and that's simply not fair, and it's also a not legal. -- it's also not legal. by enforcing our laws to protect our health, we also protect consumers, and we promote a vibrant economy. to understand today's actions, you have to understand a little bit about how our fuel efficiency program works. because our program uses greenhouse gas emission credits, we call them, as the attorney general explained. that's really our currency for our legal compliance. because the program is a fleet-wide averaging program. and each credit in that program is worth one metric ton of green

host gas emissions -- greenhouse gas emissions. so when auto companies go above and beyond an efficiency standard, they can earn credits. but if they fail to meet those standards, they have to use those credits to balance the ledger. and that's why companies buy and sell credits to make sure they're in compliance. so if a company failed to pull their weight, if it undercuts the integrity, it will undercut the integrity of the program, and we don't get the emission reductions the law guarantees. that's what today's case is all about. hyundai and kia violated the clean air act by overstating fuel efficiency in over one million cars and suvs that they sold. by doing so, they had -- they actually claimed 4.75 million credits that they did not rightfully earn which means 4.75 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions would have been unaccounted for if we

had not caught this and taken swift action. so here's how this settlement closes the gap. hyundai and kia will pay a civil of penalty of $100 million and will invest millions more to prevent future violations. and they're also forfeiting more than $200 million worth of these credits that they did not earn and they now can no longer sell or use. now, we take these violations in this case very seriously, as this is the largest penalty we've ever assessed under the clean air act. why is it so serious? because it's a reflection of the large unfair market advantage that hyundai and kia capture by overstating their fuel economy ratings. now, the clean air act grants epa the authority as well as the responsibility to regulate harmful carbon pollution that fuels climate change. while we are very committed to writing smart rules that are

reasonable and affordable and achieve the kind of carbon pollution reductions we need, we are also equally diligent in making sure we're implementing and enforcing those laws so that the reductions we need to protect public health and our economy are actually protected and delivered. not just, i think, for vehicle fuel efficiency, but we can do this for many other sectors including the power sector. so for anybody out there who may be wondering if epa can successfully reduce carbon pollution by regulating under the clean air act, you can stop worrying. we can and, indeed, we are. with that, attorney general, i'm happy to take questions with you and, again, thank you. >> 1.2 million cars that'll be on the road the next 10 or 15 years, what does this do about their noncertified emissions noncompliance?

>> to be clear, the cars do not violate the emission limits, but they were improperly certified because incorrect information was provided to the epa. so that meant that, effectively, there was no valid certification of those cars. since then the companies have corrected their data, have corrected the fuel economy figures as well as the greenhouse gas emission figures. they're paying $100 million civil penalty, giving up $200 million worth of credits and also fixing their system going forward, so this won't happen again. >> but this doesn't address the cars themselves. >> no. the cars will remain on the road, but the cars were not over the actual emission limits. the problem is the cars were misrepresented as having lower emissions than they actually had. >> why no rebates for consumers? what about people who bought these cars? are you happy with hyundai's rebate program? >> as you point out, they have a rebate program that's been in effect for the last several years resulting in several

hundreds of millions of dollars going from the companies to the consumers. in addition, consumers have brought multiple class actions that are currently pending. so through those two forms, we expect the consumers to get robust relief. >> there are three other companies at least, including ford motor company, that have had to restate mileage in much the same way as hyundai/kia. where do your enforcement actions stand with those companies, please? >> i don't think i'm in a position to give you the exact the us of all of those, but i think it's important to remember that this settlement is about epa having a robust audit process. so that if you look at this, we identified this misstatement of the fuel economy very early in the model year that we were first regulating under this light-duty vehicle rule. and we actually had the company go out and the company restated those fuel economy standards the way we believe they should have been before the end of 2012.

so this is about doing good auditing to doing good enforcement to looking closely. and what you see here, this is by far the most egregious case that we have identified. this has to do with a number of models where 1.2 million vehicles were sold, and those are model years fiscal year 201 and 2013 -- 2012 and 2013. and they actually varied in terms of their misstatement of fuel economy by between one and six miles per gallon. so we have caught other discrepancies, but those discrepancies have not been systemic in nature, they've not resulted from the way in which the companies have dope their testing system -- have done their testing systemically, and they have not been anywhere near the egregiousness of what we're talking about this morning. >> this morning acknowledged the settlement, but they suggested these misrepresentations were not actually intentional and that it's epa regulations that tripped them up and were

confusing and involving. and i'm wondering, you used words here like flagrantly, so it sounds like these companies deliberately skirted their obligations and intentionally misrepresented, is that the allegationings -- allegations, or is that -- >> we are alleging they overstated fuel economy, but the most important thing is in addition to the 300 million they're paying in a combination of both retiring those credits and not achieving the money that they represent and also in the direct fine, this is also about them changing the way they actually do their business internally in both of these companies. because we believe that the way in which they did their testing was systemically flawed. >> so was it willful misconduct? >> it was systemically flawed, and it was done in a way that would have made it inconsistent with the way that they should be doing fuel economy, inconsistent

with normal engineering practices and inconsistent with how any other company has been doing this. so i think my point is i am not claiming who had knowledge at what point in time, but that the program wasn't set up as it should be, and as a result of that it ended up with fuel economy standards that could not have allowed those vehicles to be certified. >> does that mean you're ruling out any criminal charges against anybody at hyundai as a result of this? >> the settlement today deals entirely with civil liability, and we have nothing in this settlement dealing with criminal liability, nor can we comment on any ongoing or prospective criminal law enforcement. but let me point out a little more specifically what kinds of problems we're talking about here. one was the use of not the average data from the tests, but the best data. two was testing the cars at the temperature where their fuel

economy is best. three, using the wrong tire sizes. and, four, testing them with a tailwind but then not turning around in the other direction and testing them with a headwind. so i think that speaks to the kinds of problems that we saw with hyundai andkia that resulted in the mismeasurement. >> just to follow up, general holder, you have already announced a $1.2 billion fine against toyota, charges against about 30 auto suppliers around the world, you're investigating gm according to the company and takata in new york, dueck there are systemic -- do you think there are systemic problems in the auto industry in terms of playing by the rules? >> i'm not sure i'd go that far, but there are issues that we have certainly identified, and i think that what we have shown in the actions that you have mentioned is a willingness on the part of the justice department and our partners to aggressively look at that industry but other industries as well, and where we find violations of the law, we will

go after them. >> can you just update us on the status of the gm investigation as well as takata in new york? >> i don't want to comment on those. >> not in safety, we've found nhtsa to be an effective agency at catching these safety flaws in time. >> yeah. i mean, i think that, you know, the regulatory scheme that we have in place is a sound one. the fact that we have made these discoveries and held these companies accountable means that the american people are safer, that consumers are protected. and, you know, we have, i think, the mechanisms in place to detect the issues that we have resolved. but i think it also points out that the companies have to make sure they have within themselves a culture of compliance. and that's one of the things that i think grows from these kinds of announcements. >> mr. attorney general, can i ask a question on a different

subject? it was disclosed over the weekend that a decision was made to restrict the air space over ferguson, missouri, during the protests. was the justice department involved in any way with that decision, and given your earlier comments about inhibiting news coverage, what's your view of that? >> i'm not aware that the justice department was involved in that request and, frankly, don't know an awful lot about what the nature of the request was and how impacted news coverage and helicopters and things of that nature. but what i will say is that, you know, transparency, i think, is always a good thing. and the american people need to understand, you know, what happened, for instance, what was happening, what is happening in ferguson. and anything that would artificially inhibit the ability of news gatherers to do what they do, i think, is something that needs to be avoided. >> mr. attorney general, over the summer president obama said you should not prejudge the

investigations in ferguson, and last week you said there would be wholesale change coming to the police department. did you prejudge the investigation before it's concluded, sir? >> no, i haven't prejudged anything. i'm aware of the investigation that we have ongoing. i think the comments that i made are consistent with the briefings that i have received, but we'll reveal, you know, in a more fulsome way what changes we think need to be made at the conclusion of the investigation. >> the faa was complicit in certain targeted flight restrictions, targeted in the sense if you were a news helicopter, if you couldn't come in, if you were on approach to an airport, then you were okay, is that actionable by the justice department? >> i don't know. i'm not sure. again, as i said, i don't know all the facts of, you know, what the nature of the request was, what the, what kind of interaction there was between the faa and the requesters or. >> tomorrow's election day. is there anything you guys will be doing at the justice department looking specifically across the map, any red flags

you're already seeing with early voting, anything that causes you concern? >> well, we will be sending, as we usually do, monitors all around the country to make sure that the american people have access to the ballot box. we'll be releasing, i think, a list later on today of the jurisdictions to which we will be sending monitors, and we will be very mindful of any anomalies that are recorded. [inaudible conversations] >> about how you know that the numbers that the car companies used were in error? do you do your own independent tests, or do you just awed -- audit their numbers? >> we do selective auditing. the challenge here is there is a reliance on car companies themselves providing us data on surgeon characteristics of -- certain characteristics of the company so that when we do those audits and testing, we can do can it consistently across each model year that we are actually certifying. in this case we selectively

audited this, but we went upstream, and we took a look at what the companies were doing, and we identified that the companies' internal testing that provided characteristics which were critical for us to then repeat those tests were being done in a way that we felt was significantly tilting the small to overastronaut fuel efficiency -- overstate fuel efficiency in ways that were systemic and unlike any other car company. so we also take a look at what consumers are saying. we have a web site called fuel economy.gov where people can -- that we manage with epa and the d. of energy -- that allows people to ask questions, to look at fuel economy, where it comes from, how they do can it, and they actually complain sometimes when they feel they're not getting good results, and that allows us to also do some more selective auditing as a result of that. it's a give and take, but one in which we feel through our auditing process -- and in this case it shows -- we were able to

catch it pretty early on, identify what that discrepancy was and take action to correct it. >> one more question. >> let me just ask on the number of vehicles, in november 2012, hyundai said this applied to 900,000 vehicles. today you're saying 1.2 million -- >> it was model year 2012 and 2013, so if you remember, model years 2013 come out in 2012. so when they restated, they corrected the figures, i believe, for the model years already. and this identifies both those model years as part of the settlement. and in addition to making these systemic, they're spending about 50 million additional, so this is about a $350 million settlement here on just making those internal changes and also on significantly increased and more robust auditing for us in future years so we can make sure this is actually going well. >> is there any evidence that other auto companies lost sales because they were touting 40

mpg? do you think their rivals should be compensated as a result of these overstatements? >> that's not something that is within the scope of this agreement or -- we are actually here just to enforce the companies and their behavior. >> all right, thank you. thank you, thank you. thank you for coming. >> thanks very much. >> wanted to take one more question. >> he always wants to -- >> look at him. >> mr. attorney general, the president -- [laughter] the president asked -- >> sorry, guys. i couldn't resist. >> the president asked for your recommendations -- [inaudible] have you sent those, and can you tell us what as% of the justice department are you examining that could change to try to ease deportations? >> we are in constant contact with the white house about the possibility of executive action when it comes to immigration changes, the need for

comprehensive immigration reform is something that i think is obvious. and we will see what the president will actually do, i think, at an appropriate time. but all of the actions that have been contemplated have been run through the justice department. >> you've sent your recommendations? >> we're interacting with the white house -- >> could administrator mccarthy also talk -- [laughter] you mentioned this might show you can also enforce the clean power plants. can you go on a little bit about how that enforcement would be, would take place, how would you audit and -- >> well, it's two different sections under the clean air act, but they're both really intricate ways of us making sure we can get carbon reductions in a way that are reasonable and affordable. and we use that through a credit trading system in the transportation system which

makes sure cars can perform as people need them. there can be a wide variety of people's interests in different types of vehicles, and we can still get those reductions. in the power sector, it's not too dissimilar. we're actually looking at tremendous flexibility as we've proposed the clean power rule to allow states to figure out what their energy mix is today, where the cost effective and affordable reductions are and allow them the ultimate flexibility to design plans that achieve the reductions that we think each state is able to afford. and so there is, there is many similarities in the approaches that we're taking. one is looking at where each auto manufacturer is and what they can do. in this case it's each state. but this is a way of showing that although we're providing significant flexibility, epa under the clean air act is going to achieve these reductions because they are federally enforceable, and we put in place

the kind of programs we need to insure compliance. >> what would enforcement actions against the state -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> thank you. >> throughout campaign 2014, c-span has brought you more than 130 candidate debates from across the country in races that will determine control of the next congress, and tonight watch c-span's live election night coverage to see who wins, who loses and which party will control the house and senate. our coverage begins at 8 p.m. eastern with results and analysis. you'll also see candidate victory and concession speeches in some of the most closely-watched senate races across the country. throughout the night and into the morning, we want to hear from you with your calls, facebook comments and tweets. campaign 2014 election night coverage on c-span.

.. the president is the ultimate hearsay of the countries ability to go to war. >> i would like to commend c-span2 for airing the information from the writers on greece, and the military. it was excellent information

that gave depth level, interaction and nuances. the reality, for instance, that post-traumatic stress disorder can climb up and can be resolved if you continue to try various interventions. >> i think -- [inaudible] on c-span is one of the best programs. i wish we could do it more than once a week. >> continue to lust know what you think about programs are watching. policy to suit 266-3400, e-mail us at comments@c-span.org, or send us a tweet at c-span hashtag comments. joined c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter.

>> and live shortly at johns hopkins. we are expecting remarks by secretary of state john kerry. he will be talking a jewish relations with china. this is of course ahead of his travels to the middle east. in beijing secretary kerry is expected to discuss clean energy, cybersecurity and economic empowerment of women. were expecting his remarks shortly at johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. [inaudible conversations] >> while we wait for secretary of state john kerry's appearance at johns hopkins, we will take a

look at more on regulation of gas emissions. this is the $100 million clean air penalty that was leveled against hyundai and kia. we'll show as much as possibly for secretary kerry carries the appearance. >> great to be with you. the justice department yesterday handed down a settlement that totaled $300 million in penalties for hyundai and kia which are both owned by the same motor corporation. this is for overstating their mileage on their stickers. and they find them for violating the clean air act. this is the largest fine in history of the clean air act. one of the largest settlements ever by the federal government. one of the most punitive actions undertaken against the auto

industry. and the point that they wanted to make was by overstating, by stating their mileage they sold vehicles to consumers who then spent more money, didn't get the mileage that they were promised, but also burned more carbon dioxide. put more pollution into the air than would've been calculated. and the administration want to make the point that on climate change commission, a clean air act regulations they are really going to enforce those regulations in clean air act provisions really, really effectively. >> host: we which are directly from eric holder himself made a statement about the settlement on monday. is a bit of it. >> under the historic settlement was announced today, hyundai and kia will remedy the conduct by doing three things. first they will pay a civil penalty of $100 million, the

largest civil penalty ever secured under the clean air act. this will send a strong message that cheating is not profitable and that any company that violates the law will be held to account. second, hyundai and kia will forfeit the greenhouse gas credit that the companies wrongly claimed based on their inaccurate reporting. our settlement would require them to relinquish 4.75 million metric tons worth of credit which could be valued at hundreds of millions of dollars. and, finally, hyundai and kia will be required to implement regress new procedures including training and enhanced testing of their vehicles to prevent this kind of violation from ever happening again. >> host: the attorney general laying out the specifics of what demanded a key. what is meant to the company themselves as they go forward from the settlement? >> guest: the companies are going to lose a lot of money both in the form of a direct

payment that they have to make. the attorney general talks about 100 million in direct payment and then forbidding 4.75 million -- >> good morning. i'm vali nasr, being a johns hopkins university school of advanced international studies. it is my distinct honor to welcome secretary of state john kerry for remarks on u.s.-china relations. by the as chairman of the senate foreign relations committee all as secretary of state, secretary has always assumed leadership in shaping american foreign policy on the most pressing issues of our time. from the war in afghanistan the opening with iran, the arab-israeli peace process to the serious conflict and relations with russia, secretary kerry has been instrumental in promoting american interests

during critical moments for the united states and the world. as preparations for president obama's trip to china are on the way, we are honored to host the nation's top diplomat on yet another critical foreign policy issue, the united states relationship with china. please join me in welcoming secretary kerry back to sais. [applause] >> well, thank you very much, dean nassar -- dean nasr. i've had the privilege of knowing vali for a while when i was in the senate he was a very valuable advisor, and i can remember coming down to the state department a meeting with him and with richard holbrooke and others in the early days of working on what was then called afpak, afghanistan packet data

-- afghanistan-pakistan. so thanks for your journey, thanks regarding your wisdom here at sais. and thank you all very, very much here at sais for allowing me to come here today to share a few thoughts with you about this special relationship with china, and i'm happy to be here stared at a lot of mobile devices. [laughter] it's a whole new world out there. when i ran for president in 2004 i never saw this barrage of rectangular device is facing when you were talking. it was usually just one and it was the opposition guy listening to everything you said in order to get you into trouble, if you didn't get yourself into trouble anyway. i'm getting ready to leave in a very few hours. in fact, i go directly from here to the airport, on a typical secretary of state journey, two pairs deceiving them meetings tomorrow, then to beijing, discussions on iran, nuclear program and back to beijing for

bilateral meetings with the chinese government and back to somewhere, perhaps washington but at this point with a lot of things in the air it's hard to say. so it's nice to me to get a chance before i take off to talk substance with all of you, and to talk about critical issue before i depart. this school was founded during world war ii by pundits he and -- both of them are proud to say were from massachusetts. they had a great skill, those of you who read about them to see even then the world was going to be a fundamentally changed place after world war ii. and that foreign policy makers would need to change with it. not just to keep pace, but to set the pace to express a vision

to be able see over the horizon and to define how the united states would stay strong and lead and join with other countries come increasingly empowering those other countries. and we did with the marshall plan which has many of you may know was unpopular at the time, that succeeded in rebuilding whole nations, creating democracies and setting a new direction. the world has continued to change in the 70 plus years since. almost certainly in ways that they could have only dreamed up. and it is changed i might say for the better, despite the headlines and the challenges, religious radical extremists in terrorism, it is nevertheless changed or the better in large measure precise because of the careful and creative analysis that these men so believed and hoped would, in fact, shaped the

world that is more free, more prosperous and more humane. and despite the headlines in places of detention, the world is, in fact, those things. the great american philosopher, yogi berra, once said, it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. he really said that. [laughter] and while i am reminded that state deleting about the future is always risky. there are two predictions that i'm very certain about. the asia-pacific is one of the most promising places on the planet. and america's future and security, and prosperity, are closely and increasingly linked to that region. back in august when i was returning from a trip to burma and australia, i delivered a speech at the east-west center

in honolulu about president obama's rebalanced towards the asia-pacific, and the enormous value that we place on long-standing alliances, japan, south korea, australia, thailand, the philippines, and our burgeoning relationships with asean and countries in southeast asia. in that speech i outlined for specific opportunities that defined the rebalanced, goals if you will. first, the opportunity to create sustainable economic growth, which includes finalizing the trans-pacific partnership. the tpp is not only a trade agreement, but also a strategic opportunity for the united states and other pacific nations to come together, to bind together so that we can all prosper together. second, powering a clean energy

revolution that will help us address climate change while simultaneously jumpstarting economies around the world. third, reducing tensions and promoting regional cooperation by strengthening the institutions and reinforcing the norms that contribute to a rules-based, stable region. and forth, empowering people. throughout the asia-pacific that live with dignity, security and opportunity. these are our goals for the rebalanced. these are the objectives that we are working to pursue. and we are working together with our allies and our partners across asia. and these are the goals that the president will discuss with other leaders next week at the asia-pacific economic cooperation meeting in beijing, and also at the east asia summit that follows in burma.

the goal of the rebalance is not a strategic initiative to affect one nation or push people in any direction. it is an inclusive invitation to join in this march towards prosperity, dignity, and stability for countries. i can reaffirm today that the obama administration is absolutely committed to seeing through all of these goals. but there should be no doubt a key component of our rebalanced strategy is also about strengthening u.s.-china relations. why? because a stronger relationship between our two nations will benefit not just the united states and china, not just the asia-pacific, but the world. one of the many very

accomplished alumni of this school is china's ambassador to the united states. and we're delighted that he is here today. thank you, mr. ambassador, for being here with us. the ambassador spoke at sais about one year ago. he described the u.s.-china relationship as quote the most important as well as the most sensitive, the most comprehensive as was the most complex and the most promising as well as the most challenging. all of those attributes are true, but i would respectfully add one more to that list. the u.s.-china relationship is the most consequential in the world today. period. and it will do much to determine the shape of the 21st century. that means that we have to get it right. since president obama first took

office, that's exactly what he is focused on doing. what he has worked to build over the past six years, and but we are committed to advancing over the next two years as well is a principal and productive relationship with china. that's why he and i have both met each with our chinese counterparts in person dozens of times. it's why president obama hosted the sunnylands summit last june shortly after president xi took office. it's what a couple of weeks ago i invited chinese state council were and the ambassador and others in his delegation to my hometown of boston. where we spent a day and have together charting new opportunities for our bilateral relationship. and it's why i will join the president in china next week on what will be my fourth trip to the country since i became secretary of state less than two years ago. the sheer size of china and its

economy, coupled with the rapid and significant changes that are taking place there, means that our relationship i definition -- by definition has vast potential. as two of the world's major powers and largest economies, we have a profound opportunity to set a constructive course on any number of issues, from climate change to global trade, and, obviously, we have a fundamental interest in doing so. for that reason our relationship has to be carefully managed and guided, not buy new socks and grand gestures, but by a long-term strategic vision, by hard work, by good diplomacy and by good relationships. it's important to remember that not too long ago u.s.-china ties were centered on a relatively narrow set of bilateral and

regional matters, but today thanks to focus diplomacy on both sides, the leadership, president obama and president xi have displayed, our nation's are collaborating to tackle some of the most complex global challenges that the world has ever seen. and we are able to do that because, together t, our nations are working closely in order to avoid the historic pit fall of strategic rivalries between an emerging power and an existing power. instead, we're focused on the steps that we need to ensure that we not only coexist, but that we cooperate. america's china policy is really built on two pillars. constructively managing our differences, and there are differences, and just as constructively, coordinating our efforts on a wide range of issues where our interests are

aligned. now, make no mistake. we are clear eyed about the fact that the united states and china are markedly different countries. we have clip -- different political systems, different issues, different cultures. most importantly different views on certain significant issues. and the leaders of both nations believe it is important to put our disagreements on the table, talk through them, and managed and then work to narrow the differences over time. these debates frankly don't take place in the spotlight. much of what we say doesn't end up in the headlines, but i assure you that tough issues are discussed at length whenever our leaders come together. and when we talk about managing our differences, that is not code for a agree or disagree. for example, we do not simply agree to disagree when it comes

to maritime security, especially in the south and east china seas. the united states is not a climate, and we do not -- claim it. and we do not take a position on various claims of others. but we take a strong position on how those claims are pursued and how those disputes are going to be resolved. so we are deeply concerned about mounting tensions in the south china sea, and we consistently urge all the parties to pursue claims in accordance with international law. to exercise self-restraint, to peacefully resolve disputes and to make rapid, any fool process to complete a code of conduct that will help reduce the tension or conflict in the years to come. and the united states will work without getting involved in the merits of the claim on helping that process to be effectuated. because doing so brings greater

stability, brings more opportunity for cooperation in other areas. we do not agree to disagree when it comes to cyber issues. we've been very clear about how strongly we object to any cyber enabled theft of trade secrets and other sensitive information from our companies, whatever may be doing it. and we are convinced that it is in china's interest to help put an end to this practice. foreign companies will invest more in china if they can become to that when they do their intellectual property will be safeguarded. chinese markers will be more attractive to international industries. if china shows that is serious about addressing global cyber concerns. and china's own industries will only prosper if they are generating their own intellectual property ultimately, and if their government enforces rules fully and fairly for everybody. the united states is committed

to using an open and frank dialogue to help build trust and develop common rules of the road on those pressing economic and security challenge. and we certainly do not agree to disagree when it comes to human rights. the united states always advocate for all countries to permit their citizens to express their grievances freely, publicly, peacefully and without fear of retribution. that's why we've spoken out about the situation and hong kong and human rights issues elsewhere in china. because respect for fundamental freedoms is now and always has been a centerpiece of american foreign policy. and because we have seen again and again that respect for rule of law and the protection of human rights are essential to any country's long-term growth, prosperity and stability.

and to the respect in the world. let me be clear. the united states will never shy away from articulating our deeply held values or defending our interests, our allies and our partners throughout the region. and china is well aware of that. but the relationship between our two countries has developed, matured significantly over time. our differences will undoubtedly continue to test the relationship. they always do, between people, between families, between countries. but they should not and, in fact, must not prevent us from acting cooperatively in other areas. so what are those areas? where are the great opportunities? it starts with economics. 35 years ago when diplomatic relations began between the united states and china, trade between our two countries was virtually nonexistent.

today our businesses exchange nearly $600 billion in goods and services every single year. our mutual investments are close to $100 billion. you read a lot about american businesses going over to china to let me tell you something. the truth is that today even more chinese businesses are setting up shop in the united states, and we welcome that. in fact, we did a lot to encourage chinese investment here while our embassies and consulates in china are simultaneously doing great work in order to identify opportunities for american companies over there. even as u.s. and chinese businesses compete in the marketplace, we each have a huge stake in the economic health of the other. and the fact is that the world as a whole has a huge stake in the economic vibrancy of both china and the united states.

that is why we're focused on enhancing the trade and investment between our countries, including through the ongoing negotiations of a high standard why lateral investment treaty. established rules of the road that do more to protect businesses, investors on both sides of the pacific will help both of our economies to be able to continue to grow and to prosper. one recent study by the peterson institute for international economics found that if we are able to open up trade and investments significantly, our countries could share gains of almost half a trillion dollars a year. so let me underscore, our aligned interests are more than just economic and cooperation. it's more than just commercial. as china pursues interests well beyond the asia-pacific, there's both opportunity and necessity

to coordinate our efforts to address global security concerns. our shared efforts to respond to the global threat of climate change are a perfect example. the u.n. climate report that was released over this last weekend is another wakeup call to everybody. the science could not be more clear. our planet is warming, and it is warming due to our actions, human input, ma and the damage is already visible. and it is visible at a faster and greater rate than scientists predicted. that's why there's cause for alarm. because everything that they predicted is happening but happening faster and happening to a greater degree. the solutions are within reach, but they will require ambitious, decisive and immediate action.

last year in beijing, state counselor dan and i launched the u.s.-china climate change working group. which is already engaged in pilot projects, hollis exchanges and more. we raised the climate change issue to the ministerial level so that we would be dealing with it on an ongoing high level basis. we have also been engaged since been in constant discussions aimed at ensuring that the global community can do everything possible to be able to reach a successful and ambitious climate agreement where we all meet in paris next year. in february we announced plans to exchange information and to discuss policies to develop with respective plans to strengthen domestic emissions targets for the 2015 u.n. climate negotiations, that it is referred to. by the way. we will be meeting shortly in

the lima, peru, as the lead up to this particular meeting next year in paris. so there's a lot of work going into this. next year, countries are supposed to come forward with their stated goals, and we hope that the partnership between china and the united states can help set an example for global leadership and for the seriousness of purpose on those targets and on negotiations over all. if the two countries that together are nearing 50% of all the conditions in the world, which happened to be also the two largest economies of the world, if they can come together and show seriousness of purpose, imagine what the impact could be on the rest of the world. the united states and china, the two largest consumers of energy, and we are the world's two largest emitters of global greenhouse gases.

together we account for that roughly, it's about 45% and climbing, unfortunately. ..